THE way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) deals with 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 does not really determine the eligibility of software patents in the US. The way high courts such as the Federal Circuit (or above, namely SCOTUS) deal with such patents is what matters. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) also play an important role, especially when decisions become examples or precedents. Here in Europe the appeals are dealt with not by impartial judges but 'glorified' (or elevated) examiners who are terrified of European Patent Office (EPO) presidents like António Campinos and 'Mafioso B' from Corsica. These under-qualified presidents not only allow software patents in Europe but actively advocate these; they even pressure judges to do the same. They gleefully violate the EPC and then they wonder why staff is dissenting? More than 80% of the EPO's staff is eager to go on strike, but 'Mafioso B' made it a lot harder.
"They gleefully violate the EPC and then they wonder why staff is dissenting? More than 80% of the EPO's staff is eager to go on strike, but 'Mafioso B' made it a lot harder."The UPC is dead (we have a lot more to publish about that), but software patents are not because the EPO keeps granting them. Sure, courts would typically throw them out and there will be no "unified" or "unitary" court to change that.
"Digital technologies" is one of the latest smokescreens EPO management uses to describe -- in rather broad and vague terms -- patents on algorithms. The EPO did that again just before the weekend when it tweeted: "Digitalisation is fuelling a growth in patenting. But who's filing the most European patent applications in this field? This analysis of our latest patent statistics provides some insight: https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … #EPOPatentIndex"
DigitalisationIndex...
PatentIndex...
"First Campinos fell in love with "hey hi" (AI) and now it's "digi" this, "digi" that. The EPO keeps promoting illegal software patents disguised using "Digitalisation" or "Digital technologies"..."We've named all this nonsense before...
It's like a broken record/tune now...
First Campinos fell in love with "hey hi" (AI) and now it's "digi" this, "digi" that. The EPO keeps promoting illegal software patents disguised using "Digitalisation" or "Digital technologies"...
Pay attention, dear EPO examiners.
Less than half a year ago the EPO had introduced and then also imposed new guidelines which compel examiners to grant "hey hi" patents (algorithms with glorified buzz and novelty-inducing ambiance). So examiners are in a tough place; obey orders from EPO management or respect the EPC. Cannot do both (risk of unemployment in increasingly-uncertain times in Europe).
The other day we noticed that Slaughter and May's Catherine Cotter (whom we'll mention a lot in the coming week because of UPC lies) celebrates the EPO breaking the law with buzzwords and hype waves. "Digital technologies take top spot in EU patent applications in 2019" was her headline, pushed by her boss (Slaughter, aptly-named firm) in the patent microcosm's platforms.
"Less than half a year ago the EPO had introduced and then also imposed new guidelines which compel examiners to grant "hey hi" patents (algorithms with glorified buzz and novelty-inducing ambiance)."Another one of the patent microcosm's platforms published "Patenting CIIs: ‘no one knows where to draw the line’" -- a paywalled piece by Karry Lai who's pushing illegal software under the misleading guise of "CII" (the lie manifested by the EPO). "Australian in-house counsel and lawyers reveal their struggles with the “black hole” that computer-implemented inventions seem to fall into," the summary says. Well, Australian courts and to some degree the patent office as well reject these patents. There's no “black hole” per se. It's just the law.
Going back to the EPO again, watch this other tweet posted a couple of days ago. At the top of this page the EPO promotes illegal patents on software. They're so shameless about it.
Who are you kidding, Mr. Campinos? Take off the mask. You're another Battistelli and you'd even celebrate patents (monopolies) on basic and rudimentary masks at this time. We'll say more on the latest PR blunder in our next post. It's related to this. ⬆